R v T M - [2014] ACTSC 394

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v T M
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 394
Hearing Date(s):	17 December 2014
DecisionDate:	19 December 2014
Before:	Walmsley AJ
Decision:	See [30]-[32].
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Property offences – theft – aggravated burglary – burglary – attempted aggravated robbery – aggravated robbery – accused pleaded guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited	Guy v Anderson and Telford (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 245 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) T M (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms E Beljic (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Mr M Fleming (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 198 of 2014

WALMSLEY AJ:

Background

T M was born on 28 October 1995 and is aged 19. He appears for sentence, having pleaded guilty to five offences at the first available opportunity.

Offences

The offender committed theft and burglary offences on 4 September 2013 at 14 Gilruth Street, Hackett. He was then a young person. He entered the home of Mr and Mrs Door through a secure rear sliding door, using a tool to open the door. He entered every room of the house, threw items around each room and accessed cupboards and drawers. He stole 136 items, most of which were items of jewellery. The items were valued at $60,311.14.

On 20 September 2013, the offender committed three further offences: aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated burglary, and going equipped for theft. On this occasion, he was accompanied by a co‑offender (who has been sentenced for his part in the matter). They entered a house in Nelson Place, Curtin, went to a bedroom, ransacked a wardrobe, and stole a black jewellery box and jewellery to the value of $1500.

Shortly afterwards, they went to a nearby house, number 16, Nelson Place, where they removed the screen from a room at the south eastern corner and attempted to open a window. On finding the window could not be opened properly, they left.

An attempted burglary was then reported. Police attended. The co‑offender, who was carrying a bag, ran off before being apprehended. This offender was however arrested. He was found to have with him a flat‑tipped screwdriver and a grade multi tool. That item is the subject of the offence of “going equipped for theft”, an offence he has asked me to take into account when sentencing him in respect of a later offence, one of aggravated burglary.

The offence of aggravated burglary occurred on Wednesday, 23 July 2014. On the evening of that day the offender robbed an off-duty bus driver, who had just done him a great favour by giving him a lift in his bus. At the end of the journey, the offender approached the driver with a red‑handled Stanley knife and asked him for his money, saying “I’ve got a knife and I’ll stab you but I don’t want to as you’re a nice fellow”.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v T M

Details

AGLC: R v T M [2014] ACTSC 394
Case: [2014] ACTSC 394
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v T M, the accused, T M, was charged with multiple offences arising from an incident at a residence in Sydney. T M pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, burglary, and attempted aggravated robbery. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was whether the accused's actions constituted the specific offences as charged, particularly focusing on the elements of aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated robbery.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Crimes Act 1900, specifically sections relating to burglary, aggravated burglary, and robbery. The court had to determine whether the accused's entry into the residence, armed with a knife, and his actions therein, met the threshold for aggravated burglary, and whether his intent to commit a robbery at the scene constituted an attempted aggravated robbery. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility and weight of the guilty pleas, considering the accused's version of events and the factual matrix presented.

The court concluded that the accused's actions indeed met the criteria for aggravated burglary, given that he entered the residence with the intent to commit a crime and was armed with a knife, a weapon that could be used to cause injury. The presence of the knife elevated the offence to aggravated burglary. Concerning the attempted aggravated robbery, the court found that the accused's actions, while intending to commit a robbery, were thwarted by the presence of the victims, thus constituting an attempt. The court accepted the guilty pleas as credible and accurate reflections of the events. The court ordered the accused be sentenced in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The final orders of the court included sentencing T M for the offences of aggravated burglary, burglary, and attempted aggravated robbery. The specific details of the sentences are outlined in the paragraphs [30] to [32] of the judgment, where the court detailed the considerations and principles applied in determining the appropriate penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30]-[32].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.